A billion-dollar "technical revision" added to a patent bill passed by the House last week could provide huge financial benefits to one pharmaceutical company and a law firm.

On the surface, the barely noticed amendment simply clarifies a process by which the Food and Drug Administration approves a patent for a brand-name drug, and gives the manufacturer 60 days to apply for an extension with the U.S. Patent and Trade Office.

In reality, the measure could give a New Jersey drugmaker, The Medicines Co., 2½ more years of patent protection for its lucrative blood thinner Angiomax. It would also save the law firm WilmerHale $214 million it would owe the drug company under a malpractice lawsuit if a generic alternative is sold in the United States before June 15, 2015.

The amendment barely won House approval and it is not a part of the Senate version of the patent system overhaul bill, so it is questionable whether it will ever become law. The amendment would write into law a court decision in favor of the drug company and would pre-empt any appeal.

It shows how, hidden behind the lines of obtuse legislative language, huge fortunes can be at stake, sometimes for specific companies.

Former Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal has joined the international law firm of Crowell & Moring as senior counsel.

Freudenthal says in a telephone interview with The Associated Press that the firm will open an office in Cheyenne, where he will be based. He will work for the firm's Environment and Natural Resources Group.

He says he will advise clients on issues that he handled during his two terms as governor, including minerals, natural resources development and environmental permitting.

Freudenthal says he will continue to teach at the University of Wyoming College of Law and serve on the Arch Coal Inc. board of directors.

Crowell & Moring has nearly 500 lawyers with offices in Washington, New York, Los Angeles, London, Brussels and elsewhere.

A six-week trial in Hamilton County Court ended yesterday afternoon with the award of a $14.5 million jury verdict for Joseph Radcliff and his restoration company, CPM Construction of Indiana, against State Farm Insurance.

State Farm had filed suit for insurance fraud and RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) claims against Radcliff and CPM.  The case arose out of work done by Radcliff and CPM following the April 2006 hailstorm.  Radcliff and CPM’s allegations were that after State Farm received negative publicity in the Indianapolis media for denying hail damage claims, State Farm made unfounded claims of fraud against Radcliff and instigated the filing of felony charges against him.  Those charges were dismissed by the Marion County Prosecutor, but the negative publicity resulted in Radcliff’s personal reputation and business being destroyed.

Not only did the jury find that State Farm’s claims against Radcliff were baseless, but they also found that the Radcliff’s allegations of being defamed by State Farm were true. The jury ordered State Farm to pay Radcliff $14.5 million.

Radcliff was represented by Will Riley, lead trial counsel of the law firm Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC along with attorneys Joe Williams, James Piatt and Jamie Kendall of the same firm and Mark McKinzie, Partner in the law firm Riley Bennett & Egloff LLP.

Riley stated, “It was a tribute to the American jury system that one man can take on the largest insurance company in the nation and win.”  McKinzie agreed, stating “This sends a strong signal to Bloomington, Illinois that Hoosiers will not put up with this sort of conduct.” Radcliff commented “I am grateful to those who believed in me and helped me get the true facts before the jury and to the jury for giving me, and my failed company, justice.”

Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC is a law firm known for its representation of clients in complex litigation. Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP is a law firm known for advising and representing businesses and their owners in various litigation matters.

In a strongly worded legal brief, the Obama administration has said the federal act that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman was motivated by hostility toward gays and lesbians and is unconstitutional.

The brief was filed Friday in federal court in San Francisco in support of a lesbian federal employee's lawsuit claiming the government wrongly denied health insurance coverage to her same-sex spouse.

The Justice Department says Karen Golinski's suit should not be dismissed because the law under which her spouse was denied benefits — the Defense of Marriage Act — violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

"The official legislative record makes plain that DOMA Section 3 was motivated in large part by animus toward gay and lesbian individuals and their intimate relationships, and Congress identified no other interest that is materially advanced by Section 3," the brief reads, referring to the section in the act that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Though the administration has previously said it will not defend the marriage act, the brief is the first court filing in which it urges the court to find the law unconstitutional, said Tobias Barrington Wolff, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Former Bosnian Serb military chief Ratko Mladic plans to boycott Monday's hearing at the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal, where he is scheduled to enter pleas to charges including genocide, his Serbian lawyer said.

Mladic is boycotting to demand the power to choose his own defense attorneys, lawyer Milos Saljic said.

"Mladic has decided not to attend the court session to insist on his defense team choice," Saljic told The Associated Press.

The court in the Hague, Netherlands has asked for more time to vet the list of lawyers Mladic has submitted to verify their qualifications and eligibility. Saljic said that Mladic wants him and a Russian lawyer.

Mladic was extradited to the tribunal from Serbia on May 31 after being captured following 15 years as a fugitive. He is charged with orchestrating atrocities committed by Serb forces throughout the 1992-95 Bosnian war. He faces a maximum life sentence if convicted.

A former lawyer intrigued by the global demand for energy says he chose to invest $100,000 in oil giant Chevron Corp. back in 2004, a smart stock bet that now would have doubled seven years later.

But Perry Christy has a big problem: He says Chevron's stock agent never deducted money from his bank account. As a result, he has no records to show he actually owns a certain number of shares.

So Christy, 69, is suing Chevron and Mellon Investor Services and seeking an extraordinary remedy. He wants a federal judge to declare that he should be credited with buying the stock at a June 2004 price, plus any additional shares that would have piled up by reinvesting dividends. Then he'll pay $100,000.

Based on the terrific rise in San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron's stock, it would be like winning the lottery—and then buying a ticket.

"There was some kind of mix-up on the day I placed the order," Christy insisted in an interview at his home in the Detroit suburb of Northville. "Whether mechanical or electronic, I don't think we'll ever know. But it's their screw-up. When you deal with any large bureaucracy, people are focused on their own narrow niche."

After more than a year in court, Chevron and Mellon smell a scam and want the case dismissed, even suggesting that Christy's story of a genuine yet botched investment simply is a lie.